Reflect - Work on Meshes?

A weird thing I feel - we can get reflect on SubDs, but not a plain old mesh?

Would this be a possible easy win to add?

lets talk about what it is you are trying to do first…

the best lesson I have learned since coming on board here is to try and present the developers with the problem you are trying to solve, not the solution.

Well, I’m working on a mesh, and it would be nice to work on it in the reflect manner.

So, the workaround is you have to make it into a subd, get into flat mode, do your bidding, then extractcontrolpolygon to get the true mesh.

Just seemes an odd limitation of reflect given it’s working on somethign similar under the hood, in so far as the identical control net. Thoughts?

I’m exporting some stuff to blender, froma mix of nurbs and subd, but keeping poly count low. So working with the meshes I’m going to actually see. End result is a model displayed on the web, which explains the need for low poly/control.

While I’m at it, have you looked at the outputs of extract piped curve? Boy, they’re really not nice meshes at at all. Can someone look at that too? Some that I’m working with, quadremesh won’t even touch it.

One final niggle, what is with the below behaviour?

eg_mesh_verts.3dm (145.0 KB)

Result of deleting edge loops on meshes. The points remain, and edges are broken up. Runnign rebuild mesh gets yu back to all the quads again. Again,this becomes at odds with subd, and the subd control polygon is way more elevated and feature rich than the mesh.

Another thing may be, to add a delete input for extractcontrolpolygon?

OK, I get that… other than being a glutton for punishment and doing mesh work in rhino, i see where you are going. The main issue is mesh has been since the beginning a bit of an add on…and not a great one at that. If you’d ever tried to trim, split, or boolean a mesh in v2,3,4,5 and to some extent v6, and even some meshes in v7…you have seen first hand what I mean.

Why would you do poly work in rhino and not blender if you have that available? (this does not avoid the question of our mesh tools)

My initial answer about reflect, is subd’s are typically well sorted and well organized, with much lower poly counts than say, a scan of a human face. Is that a cop out? possibly, I’ll propose it to folks smarter than me and see what they say.

can you post an example with some images to support? sounds like your results are something we need to see, as I’m getting nice stuff here.

Same question, can you post an example file and some images to support? (start a new thread for each please, so I can attach them to a bug report and not force the developer to sort through multiple issues…gotta keep em focused)

thanks for your help on that, I’ll feed these into the machine and see what it spits out-

Thanks Kyle!

Yeah I should add this an exception to the rule in terms of mesh ‘modelling’. It’s more that I’m making stuff accurately in nurbs/subd, and then trying to refine the meshes that are output by

quadremesh/mesh. Hey, can’t blame a guy for liking the way rhino works and trying to achieve a little more in a wheelhouse he knows well!

Thanks! I would say take the case of a static mesh that you want ‘mirrored’. say it was quite a dense mesh, you would have to first go through the process of making a higher resolution and heavily subdivided version of it, just so that you could create that symmetry to be able to get th low poly back of it. To be fair, maybe just doing mirror with history with a mesh will be enough, I’m sure a mesh split just by a line wouldn’t create too much additional work. Reflect would of course just be a nicer shortcut, and seems like normal meshes could belong under that command.

@piac as the smartest mesh guy I know… any thoughts here?

@theoutside your patron here is Lowell @lowell, and soon to be helped by Jussi @Jussi_Aaltonen on this intimidating task.

All I can say straight away is that meshes and SubDs do not have much in common under the hood. But it’s worth logging YT item for your request.